A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying repeated motions for continuance when the record reflects that the moving party has not established good cause for a continuance.

Defendant appealed a conviction for a single count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine on grounds that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion for a continuance. Defendant moved for a continuance on three separate occasions at trial, but at each stage did not provide “good cause” for the motions. Defendant’s first motion was based on dislike for the court-appointed defense attorney; the court denied this motion on grounds that the attorney was sufficient, and that while Defendant is entitled to the counsel of his choice, Defendant did not show good cause to have another attorney appointed. Defendant’s second and third motions were based on a speculative statement about Defendant’s desire to have a private defense attorney and to find witnesses; however, Defendant was neither specific about an attorney, the identity of witnesses, nor whether Defendant would have available funds for a private attorney. The Court held that the trial court adequately balanced the rights of the Defendant with the need for expeditious judicial proceedings, and therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motions. Affirmed.